But a reader of the Wall Street Journal from Colorado wrote in to the Journal with an interesting suggestion: what about enlisting the help of insurance companies?

“Car-insurance companies could simply add a clause to deny coverage to customers if an accident occurs while the driver is using a cellphone. The risk of a crash, including the liability of injury to others, would expose the driver to paying all damages out of pocket. I wager that this would put a fairly swift end to this practice for most people. ”

It’s a compelling proposition, considering that right now the financial deterrent for texting and driving is relatively low compared to the fines for drinking and driving. However, the idea isn’t picking up much steam in the insurance industry.

In an email to the New York Times, State Farm’s Dick Luedke said that insurance companies usually pick up the check, even when the driver has been negligent by drinking and driving. “Generally speaking, we fulfill our promise even when the person to whom we make the promise violates the law, and we fulfill our promise to the person who texts while driving, whether or not that person is violating the law.”

While a lack of insurance coverage could be a deterrent to the driver, the flip side is that if an insurance company refuses to foot the bill for a distracted driver’s accident, that bill can include health care costs to the victim as well. If someone is texting and driving and smacks into another vehicle, seriously wounding a passenger, the texting drivers insurance wouldn’t cover those hospital bills.

What seems more practical is that insurance companies will adjust their rates to penalize distracted drivers. While this seems to be common sense, greater public awareness that distracted driving will directly cost the driver may help pressure drivers to put down the phone while behind the wheel.

Ultimately, relying on extra-legal means to set the bounds of behavior seems counterintuitive. If distracted driving is a mistake that we as a society believe should be punished by thousands of dollars of car repair and health care costs, shouldn’t the maximum fine for being caught texting behind the wheel represent that cost? Philosophically, it makes sense to spend energy treating the disease, which is texting and driving, rather than the symptoms, which are the wrecked vehicles and lives that result from distracted driving.

Photo Credit: Jason Weaver

In the public mind, taxis represent congestion, reckless driving and annoyance. But in reality, a large taxi system is one of the most important ways to make the roads safer and a city greener. That’s because, as Supervisor Weiner put it, “If we really want to get people out of their cars, we need a reliable Muni, an effective car-sharing program and world-class taxi service.”

He’s backing up his words by bringing the issue before the Metro Transportation Agency and asking for a board meeting to understand what the city is currently doing to improve taxi service in San Francisco.

“People need to know that if they need to get somewhere quickly, they can jump in a cab and get there. And I personally have people tell me that if they knew they could get a cab when they wanted, they would sell their cars tomorrow,” Wiener told us.

It’s worth noting that not only are cabs convenient, and a replacement for people who don’t need cars all the time, but can’t commute only by public transportation, they are safe. A major 2004 study by then consultant Bruce Schaller, who is now Deputy Commissioner for Planning and Sustainability at the New York City Department of Transportation, found that accidents were far less frequent amongst taxis than the general population. In his New York study, the crash rate for taxicabs was 4.6 reported accidents per million miles traveled as compared to 6.7 reported accidents per million miles for all vehicles.

Schaller theorized that this can be attributed to the fact cab drivers are professional drivers, and though xenophobic stereotypes say otherwise, almost anyone who spends that much time behind the wheel is going to be competent. Further, if your livelihood depended on not hitting pedestrians, cyclists and other vehicles, wouldn’t you be less likely to get in a collision?

We applaud that carsharing keeps cars off the road, and it’s perceived as a modern invention that harnesses the power of the internet to make cars accessible to anyone. Well don’t forget taxis–the original carshare service! This is an important cosmetic and functional improvement that San Francisco’s government should support. It will make the streets safer and less congested and city living more convenient.

Photo Credit: Blue Waikiki

But when you look at this image of the proposed design (below), which would remove parking spaces rather than constricting traffic flow by cutting into driving lanes, that left hand turn gives me plenty of pause. See I have spent a lot of time in Washington DC before working for GJEL, and when the city implemented its bike-friendly updates, part of that was putting in what is essentially the bike highway on 15th street NW.

Proposed design of bikeway on Fell and Oak

Most of the design is the same as what is proposed on Fell and Oak, 15th is a oneway, three lane street with heavy traffic. The big difference is that the left hand turn lane does not infringe on the bike lane. At no time do bikes and cars mingle. They even coordinated left hand turn lights with the bike lights to make sure that drivers should never have to worry about sideswiping a cyclist flying up the street.

As a bike-rider, the results were great. The sense of security in using 15th street is unparalleled, and it is an essential artery for riders around the city. Even though there are bikelines throughout DC, it’s worth going to 15 street where you can be sure to be out of drivers’ ways and separated by a barrier.

The city of San Francisco has done something similar at Fell and Masonic, where cameras and light signals ensure that drivers don’t creep into the cyclist thoroughfare.

I think one of the big pluses of the 15th street bike corridor in DC is that it sort of cordones off an area where cyclists feel safe and where cars don’t feel like they are competing for space. It encourages cycling while removing them from the most dangerous and high-conflict areas. Bikers aren’t going anywhere, in fact they are growing in number. Structural advancements, like the Fell and Oak bikeway, are crucial to accommodating the shifting modes of transportation in San Francisco. Smart implementation of just a few such bike highways like DC’s throughout San Francisco could go a long way to alleviating the stressful relationship between bikes and cars in the city.

Technology is advancing at an accelerating rate. “Steps” in innovation that previously took years are now taking months. Each new iteration of the smart phone increases our connectivity with our digital lives and selves. Increasingly, when we think, we don’t do it alone, but with the help of

That integration between technology, our own lives and indeed how we use our brains for tasks large and small complicates the issues surrounding cell phone use and driving. Obviously no one should use cell phones or even hands-free devices to call or send texts while driving. But now that we think using these tools, is it time to re-evaluate the whole debate?

On the Huffington Post, I drew on the work of anthropologist Amber Case who she believes that we are all, effectively, cyborgs, because of how we have integrated technology into our cognitive habits. She is at the fore of a movement to better understand the way humans use interactive technology, and her thoughts helped me grapple with the driving and cell phone issue:

Consider all the times you’ve Googled something that you can’t believe you didn’t know. Or the notes that, despite not being about a pressing matter, you texted someone rather than wait to tell them in person. The way we perceive reality has been shifted so that in our minds, we consider ourselves connected to a greater amount of information through our devices. These are not external, but a part of our internal knowledge. You know where the nearest restaurant is not because you can recall it immediately, but because you can use an Internet program to find the answer immediately. In function, there is no difference.

So when someone resists not using his or her phone while driving, it’s because this technology is a part of our cognitive habits. It’s not a hammer we pick up for a specific purpose then put back down, it’s an extra lobe of the brain.

The implications of this reality, if we accept it, are pretty dramatic. It means we should stop building cars and roads for the humans we used to be, and start planning for cyborg life.

I can’t say as anyone has figured out exactly what to make of this question. We are not the same people who have been driving in cars, riding on bikes and walking in streets for a hundred years. Those dynamics are all complicated by the fact that each of us, usually is connected to a smart phone–whether to listen to music, talk to friends, look up directions, whatever– while we move about.

Moreover this isn’t some problem for only the tech addicted. While driving or walking to riding, who hasn’t had a thought or question pop into his or her head that only a device connected to the internet could answer?

When we drive, we think. When we think, we increasingly rely and work with smart devices to augment the scope of our minds.

How do we account for this in the roads, sidewalks and cars we build?

Can we really expect driving to be one of the only activities for which we give up this part of our “mental self”?

For now, we must. But if Case’s theories are on target, we are on the cusp of a reinvention of the way we interact with our cars. There’s no question that automakers are increasingly moving in that direction, because that’s where the demand is.

So far, the results are mixed. Even using on board interactive systems while driving raises the danger level. Still, we should probably encourage car makers to perfect these systems rather than pushing to outlaw them. Interactive technology is simply a part of the modern human experience. Denying that reality could be even more dangerous than indulging it.

Photo Credit: Mo Riza ]]> http://www.gjel.com/blog/cyborgs-cell-phones-and-traffic-safety.html/feed 0 http://www.gjel.com/blog/claycord-residents-discuss-their-most-dangerous-roads.html http://www.gjel.com/blog/claycord-residents-discuss-their-most-dangerous-roads.html#comments Fri, 06 Jan 2012 13:24:54 +0000 GJEL http://www.gjel.com/?p=24543

CLAYCORD.com, a site dedicated to the East Bay hamlets from Clayton to Concord, hosted an interesting question on their Wednesday Water Cooler talk: “What is the most dangerous street in Claycord?”The answers were an unfiltered look at how people perceive their surroundings, and what factors contribute to a dangerous conditions. The thread is about sixty responses long, so it’s not a massive sample size, but it’s still a significant and interesting swath of the community.

Some of the complaints were as expected. People identified drunk drivers (Monument Blvd.), poorly lit, foggy areas with poor visibility (Kirker Pass) and speeding or over-aggressive drivers (Concord Blvd and Marsh Creek).

A few commenters also pointed out something very true about suburban Bay Area roads. four lane roads with a median in the middle and two lanes traveling in either direction feels like a freeway. This is something that Wendy Alfsen of California Walks talked with us about in our Word on the Streets video cast. Speed limits are well and good, but it’s also important to recognize that speeders will not be deterred by speed limit signs when they feel they are in a situation in which it is safe to speed– a “read” often made based on the appearance of the road they are driving on.

One commenter said this about Concord Blvd:

“Speed limit is too high for a residential area and speeding is a major problem. It has been awhile since someone died on that road. Lower the speed limit to 25, put in median to prevent passing and speed bumps like on Landana.”

Others focused on non-car traffic. Pedestrian and cyclist safety came up a few times, but mostly as an annoyance to drivers.

While that’s not all that encouraging, more worrisome were the comments like this one “I have to say that the most dangerous drivers are the ones going 25mph and blocking the flow of traffic. If you can’t do 34 or 40, get off the road!!”

Of course this couldn’t be further from the truth. In reality, drivers that take it slow are only dangerous is other drivers are speeding. But the real issue is that driving just 5-10 miles per hour faster dramatically reduces the time that drivers have to react to the unexpected and increases the likelihood of a fatal accident.

But thought the answers weren’t what a street safety advocate loves to see, it’s important for the discussion to be taking place. It’s important for Concord residents and drivers to be cognizant of the most dangerous spots in the area.

Photo Credit: Timothy J

We often think of fatal accidents and roadway tragedies as awful incidents involving strangers, but 7 out of 10 of “non-traffic” deaths involving children are caused by a relative, usually a parent. That was the case on December 26th, when a Contra Costa County man backed his truck out of the driveway and, unwittingly, over his toddler son, killing the boy. Norris’s death was the second such tragedy in three days in Northern California.

All signs state that Malcolm Norris’s death was a tragic accident, but like most accidents, driveway back-up injuries and deaths are largely preventable. KidsAndCars.org is an organization committed to that kind of prevention by advocating for a new federal law that would require manufacturers to include cameras in the back of vehicles to eliminate blind spots.

According to the organization, 50 children are backed over in an American driveway each week, and two die. Over the last 20 years, nearly 200 children have died of being backed-over in California alone–more than twice as many as in any other state, and KidsAndCars cautions that these statistics are “vastly” under-reported.

Often, these accidents aren’t the result of a negligent parent backing up without looking, but a kid running behind a vehicle where the parent or driver cannot see.

Consumer Reports has found that pick up trucks like the one that ran over Malcolm Norris have a blind spot of 24 feet.

KidsAndCars tells parents they can keep from unintentionally backing over children by being sure not to become distracted between leaving the house and getting in the car. Often kids will run out through an unlocked door, or even a doggie door, while the parent is checking a phone or is otherwise distracted.

As Bonnie Lovette, injury prevention coordinator for the trauma services unit of Children’s Hospital Oakland, put it to the Contra Costa Times: “It’s all about continuity and closeness. Any time the risk increases, you must know where your child is — even if you have the other parent show you ‘here he is.”

The predominant age for back-overs are children younger than two years, who do not yet understand the dangers that cars present. This is especially troubling for anyone who drives near young children, as these kids are too young for parents to even educate.

That means it’s up to parents to keep everyone safe with vigilant driving habits.

To that end, here’s a fact sheet from KidsAndCars that lists some smart ways to keep kids–especially very young ones–safe around vehicles. Please take a look to learn more.

Photo Credit: Michael Cote

Drivers face all kinds of distractions while behind the wheel. For most Americans, the car has become an extension of the home and it is not uncommon to see a driver engaging in dangerous behaviors while driving including eating/drinking, fiddling with the radio or navigation system, putting on makeup, talking to other passengers, tending to children in the back seat, shaving as well as talking on cell phones and text messaging. In Oregon, a bus driver was even videotaped by a passenger reading using a Kindle device while driving.

This new study reveals that drivers – especially younger ones –  grossly underestimate the hazardous effects of cell phone usage on their driving. The study said 61% of drivers under the age of 24 feel that using a cell phone while driving had no impact whatsoever on their driving ability.

Younger drivers between the ages of 18-20 are also more likely to send text messages while driving with 44% of those had done so. Young drivers are in denial that cell phone usage while driving is dangerous.

The study posed the question, “How many seconds do you believe a driver can take his or her eyes off the road before driving becomes significantly more dangerous?” The study revealed that 46% believe that danger increases after 1 to 2 seconds, 19% chose 3 to 4 seconds and 8% select 5 to 10 seconds.

The fact of is that distracted driving does cause car crashes. The National Transportation Safety Administration (NTSA) estimated that in 2009 alone 5,500 people in the U.S. were killed and more than 450,000 suffered injuries in car accidents where distracted driving was a factor.

This year there have been several high profile cases in which people were killed in accidents where cell phone usage was a factor.

In California, Danae Marke Miller, 22, was charged with vehicular manslaughter after she hit and killed a bicyclist, Armine Britel, 40. It was revealed that Miller was texting when the bicycle accident occurred and she was also under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Her court date was schedule for December. She faces up to 10 years in prison.

In Washington State, a 22-year-old woman, Ashley R. Davis-Jones, was killed when her vehicle crossed the centerline and she was hit head-on by a semi-truck. An investigation revealed that Davis-Jones and been texting moments before the crash occurred.

There have been some pilot projects that found that when cell phone ban laws were strictly enforced along with public education campaigns about the dangers, texting while driving dropped by nearly 75%. In the future, campaigns against distracted driving may become as prevalent as those against DUI.

This post was provided by Herbert G. Farber, the founder of The Farber Law Group, a personal injury law firm located in Bellevue, Washington.

We focus on getting to our destination safely, but as US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood points out on his Fastlane blog, the trip back from an event or gathering is just as dangerous as the trip to it. There are more trips at night, and drivers may be tired or less attentive. That’s why the Sunday after Thanksgiving was designated Drive Safer Sunday.

But not everyone got the message. In Nevada County, California, crime was generally down over Thanksgiving weekend, except for in one key area: drunk driving.

The Union reports, “the county has seen an increase in DUI bookings at the jail every year for the past three years for the four days of the Thanksgiving holiday, according to jail records. DUI bookings from all local law enforcement agencies have nearly tripled in three years, with 17 this weekend compared to six in 2009, jail records show.”

One doesn’t traditionally think of Thanksgiving as a particularly alcohol-filled affair on the order of other winter holidays like New Years Eve. But we can extrapolate from this report and assume that similar trends appear throughout the country.

That’s why California is one of many states that step up their DUI checkpoints and patrols during the holidays. According to Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) California Executive Director Gary MacDonald, California’s use of DUI checkpoints has been one of the most effective deterrents against drunk driving.

What’s disturbing here is that Thanksgiving is a time spent with friends and family, who should know when to keep person who has been drinking from getting behind the wheel.

Holiday events, even Thanksgiving and Christmas, are celebrations of friends and family, and that celebrating can sometimes mean consuming alcohol. It’s important for hosts who serve alcohol to serve plenty of food, recognize when someone has had enough, and to monitor guests who have been drinking and are preparing to leave.

Of course, that puts the hosts in a difficult position, but anyone who serves alcohol should be prepared to take on that responsibility. Still, the simplest and best way to make sure that everyone gets home safely is to be proactive. If you plan to drink during the holidays, arrange for a designated driver or take a cab.

Sometimes the simplest advice is the soundest.

Photo Credit: Oklahoma County Sheriff

In 2009, California had the 15th highest rates of pedestrian deaths by population, though overall roadway casualties dropped by 27 percent between 1994 and 2009.